Review

Reviewed Work(s): Disciplining Democracy: Development Discourse and Good Governance in

Africa by Rita Abrahamsen
Review by: Guy Martin
Source: African Studies Review, Vol. 44, No. 3 (Dec., 2001), pp. 182-185
Published by: Cambridge University Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/525651
Accessed: 29-10-2019 01:18 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to African Studies Review

This content downloaded from 131.111.5.181 on Tue, 29 Oct 2019 01:18:03 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
182 African Studies Review

allowing us to better understand the African crisis, Herbst's approach

totally unsatisfying, if not downright confusing, and it leaves Africa defini-
tively outside of the political science mainstream.
Guy Martin
New York University
New York, New York

Rita Abrahamsen. Disciplining Democracy: Development Discourse and Good

Governance in Africa. London: Zed Books, 2000. Distributed by St. Martin's Press,
New York. 147 pp. References. Index. $22.50. Paper.

Among the massive academic production on African democracy and devel-

opment of the last decade, one very rarely finds a work that fundamentally
questions the dominant paradigm, boldly challenges prevailing orthodoxy,
and quietly disturbs the status quo. Both the late Claude Ake's seminal
Democracy and Development in Africa (Brookings Institution, 1996) and Rita
Abrahamsen's Disciplining Democracy fall into that category.
A lecturer in international politics at the University of Wales,
Aberyswyth, Rita Abrahamsen takes a postmodernist approach inspired by
the works of Michel Foucault, Edward Said, and Robert Cox to challenge
conventional explanations of democratization in sub-Saharan Africa-par-
ticularly the relegation of external factors to secondary importance-and
to show how development discourse has constructed the Third World as
underdeveloped, thereby legitimizing the right of the North to control and
develop the South. Thus, she argues, "the good governance discourse is
merely the latest reproduction of the 'dream of development,' and simi-
larly entitles the North to develop and democratize the South in its
image.... Development discourse... emerges as crucial to an under-
standing of recent transitions to multi-party politics in Africa" (xi). Abra-
hamsen further shows how the good governance discourse used by the
Bretton Woods institutions (IMF and World Bank), notably the instrumen-
tal interpretation of the concept of "popular empowerment," fuses democ-
racy and economic liberalism into an essentially Western image of the good
society reminiscent of modernization theory.
As a consequence, she argues, this good governance discourse serves to
legitimize a minimalist form of liberal democracy based on civil and politi-
cal rights, while delegitimizing and marginalizing alternative conceptual-
izations based on popular participation and the promotion of the social
and economic rights of the poor. Abrahamsen also demonstrates how the
newly elected African governments of the new democratic era are facing
two irreconcilable constituencies: external donors and creditors and their
poor domestic majorities. While these governments are crucially depen-
dent on the first for financial survival and on the second for reelection,
they cannot possibly satisfy both at the same time. Having chosen to satisfy

This content downloaded from 131.111.5.181 on Tue, 29 Oct 2019 01:18:03 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Book Reviews 183

the external actors in order to secure continued access to financial

resources and to maintain themselves in power, the African govern
and leaders have been forced to resort to authoritarianism in order to con-
tain civil disorder and to silence critics.

This analysis leads Abrahamsen to the pessimistic conclusion that

ten years on, the good governance agenda has been largely unsuccessful
in promoting stable multi-party democracies on the African continent.
Although most African countries have by now established democratic
structures and procedures, the substance of civil and political rights has
gradually been eroded and these democracies remain highly fragile and
plagued by civil and political instability." (xiv-xv)

Indeed, any attentive and astute observer of the current African politic
scene would be hard-pressed to disagree fundamentally with such an analysis.
In just over 150 pages, Rita Abrahamsen makes a concise, tightly
argued, and compelling argument which, in a nutshell, is that in th
post-Cold War world, the impoverished and disenfranchised African pop
ular masses have been abandoned by their own leaders and sacrificed by
the international community on the altar of globalization. Indeed, the
African people emerge clearly as the laisses-pour-compte (or casualties) of
global prosperity which only benefits northern countries, firms, and org
nizations and the southern elites who work hand-in-glove with them. Mor
specifically, the good governance agenda actively promoted by the Worl
Bank and the IMF is conceptually linked to economic liberalism, and "the
effort to strengthen civil society concentrates primarily on nurturing th
bourgeoisie and creating an enabling environment for business" (61). On
the other hand, "'empowerment of the people' is reduced to cost-sharing
and becomes a tool in the hands of liberal economists." In this way, "the dis-
course legitimizes continued structural adjustment, and gives it a more
democratic face, while simultaneously delegitimizing more interventionis
and socialist strategies" (65).
Abrahamsen further demonstrates that the type of democracy promot-
ed by the good governance discourse and liberal scholarship-procedural
or minimalist approaches concerned with equal legal or formal rights ta
Schumpeter, Dahl, or Huntington-is one that centers on the selection o
leaders (hence the exclusive focus on multiparty elections) and excludes
socioeconomic rights (i.e., a democratic theory committed to the ideals o
participation, equality, tolerance, and liberty it la Rousseau or John Stuar
Mill). Illustrating her argument with case studies of Zambia, Ghana, Keny
and Ctte d'Ivoire, the author shows how popular demand for politic
change in African countries seems to have had as much to do with wid
spread dissatisfaction with deteriorating economic conditions as with a
deep commitment to democracy. Indeed, "mass protests across the cont
nent were first and foremost demands for better standards of living, that is

This content downloaded from 131.111.5.181 on Tue, 29 Oct 2019 01:18:03 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
184 African Studies Review

for change rather than for democracy per se" (99).

More crucially, the author argues that African democracy movement
embodied two different conceptions of democracy. For the poor, politic
change meant an end to poverty and suffering; for the political elite an
the middle classes, democracy was perceived as a route back to power an
as a way of protecting their privileges. Thus, according to Abrahamsen, t
return of democracy to Africa signals the victory of a certain kind of democ
racy, benefiting certain constituencies: "In many African countries demo
ratization was a victory for the liberal conceptualization of democracy an
those who had most to gain from continued economic liberalization-th
elite and the middle classes, as well as donors and creditors. Their vision of
democracy prevailed, and assured the continuation of elite lifestyles while
shielding them from domestic demands for redistribution and increased
provision of social welfare" (109-10). In conclusion, Abrahamsen main-
tains that such an outcome can be explained by the vital importance of
international financial assistance for state survival in Africa.

Rita Abrahamsen makes her case elegantly and persuasively, and she
offers a cogent and convincing explanation of the paradox of democrac
and development-that is, how is it possible for African countries and lead
ers simultaneously to democratize their political systems and structurally
adjust their economies in a context of decreasing economic and financia
resources? The short answer is that it is indeed impossible for African lead-
ers to satisfy the contradictory demands of two constituencies: externa
donors and creditors, and the African urban and rural masses. Indeed, the
simultaneous promotion of democracy and economic liberalism "has pre-
vented the process of democratization from progressing beyond the elec-
toral stage, as it effectively rules out social reforms towards a more equi-
table distribution of wealth." In this way, "the good governance discourse
presides over the creation of what can be termed "exclusionary democra-
cies," that is, democracies that cannot incorporate the majority of the pop-
ulation and their demands in any meaningful way" (113).
Although Abrahamsen's argument is generally persuasive, her work
may be faulted on a number of counts. First of all, she makes some dis-
putable claims. For example, she declares that "economically, Africa has
always been of limited importance to the industrialized countries" (33), a
claim evidently contradicted by the historical record of European imperi-
alism and colonialism in Africa and the West's continuing need for strate-
gic raw materials from central and southern Africa. Second, Abrahamsen's
African country case studies are superficial and unevenly treated. Although
the author cautions that "these are not case studies of democratization, but
intended more as commentary and reflection on contemporary develop-
ment discourse and practice" (86-87), the strength of her argument rests
essentially on adducing compelling evidence from various African coun-
tries. And while she does this well for Zambia and fairly well for Ghana, her
treatment of Kenya and C6te d'Ivoire are far too superficial and inade-

This content downloaded from 131.111.5.181 on Tue, 29 Oct 2019 01:18:03 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Book Reviews 185

quate to be convincing (on the latter country, she cites only one author and
not the best, R. C. Crook). Strangely, Abrahamsen also shies away from eve
referring to the two political and economic giants of Africa, Nigeria a
South Africa. This lacuna is all the more surprising in that her reference t
the "democratic pact" types of transition in Latin America applies perf
ly, pari passu, to South Africa: "Such pacts may serve as a vehicle thro
which elements of the previous authoritarian regime continue to influ
the new democracy" (80). As a result, while Abrahmsen makes a c
pelling argument with regard to Third World countries in general, h
argument vis-ai-vis specific African countries is somewhat less convinc
because of the choice and weaknesses of her case studies.

The most intriguing aspect of this work, however, has to do with t

fact-possibly owing to her postmodernist approach-that such a cogen
and compelling analysis leads the author to a disappointingly anticlima
conclusion:

A genuine concern for democracy in Africa would accordingly concen-

trate efforts around the question of how to craft an economic policy that
would facilitate consolidation. This in turn would entail a more politically
sensitive approach to adjustment and most likely a more gradual imple-
mentation of economic austerity measures, in order to protect people's
living standards from plummeting to depths that are almost guaranteed to
erode government legitimacy and cause widespread social and political
protest and unrest." (141)

In other words, having convincingly demonstrated that structural adju

ment in Africa leads to the further impoverishment of the rural and urban
poor, Abrahamsen advocates more of the same as a remedy. Such
reformist agenda based on political realism is not likely to address th
needs of the African poor or to eliminate the political and economic co
tradictions and instability inherent in this situation.
When all is said and done, and in spite of these shortcomings, Rita
Abrahamsen's Disciplining Democracy brings a fresh, unorthodox, and origi-
nal new perspective to the topic of democracy and development in Afri
Just as, following Gilbert Rist, she talks about the power of the developmen
discourse to seduce, so one is seduced by her compelling argume
Indeed, political and economic developments in most African countrie
during the last decade tend to confirm the author's analysis. Because
that, and also because it boldly challenges the dominant African studi
paradigms, her work should be required reading for any student, acade
ic, expert, and layperson with a genuine and abiding interest in Afric
political, economic, and social issues.
Guy Martin
New York University
New York, New York

This content downloaded from 131.111.5.181 on Tue, 29 Oct 2019 01:18:03 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms